Yes or no to the AV?

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

I agree, most people don't know anything about the political and economic philosophies of the parties for whom they vote and that is one of the reasons political parties don't tell the whole truth when they canvass for votes. Let me give you an example. Whilst the political philosophers on whom Left parties base their views believe that the lower classes (I,m sorry, but I won't use that ridiculous, hypocritical British euphemism 'working classes-we all work for a living) are lower class because of their NURTURE, ie the economic and social conditions into which they were born, the political philosophers on whom Right parties base their views believe that the lower classes are lower class because of NATURE ie that they are unintelligent and so incapable of rising.
In the past, Right parties did not need to keep their views on this quiet because the lower classes were not allowed to vote. But as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage, the lower classes can vote now, and as they form the biggest section of society, any political party wishing to take power needs to get the support of a substantial section of this class. But they are unlikely to get it if they proclaim that these people are lower class because they are naturally unintelligent and incapable of rising. Some lower class people with a propensity for doffing their caps and tugging their forelocks might accept this, but most would probably feel insulted.
I agree that education is the key and Left parties believe very much in education and were responsible for the introduction of free education for all in every society where it exists. Right parties on the other hand do not attach so much importance to education except for the higher classes. They would rather the lower classes didn't learn too much-particularly about subjects such as political philosophy and history. That way, they won't get any ideas into their heads........
With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits. Secondly, as any economist knows, the 'black economy' in the UK is an integral part of the Friedmanite economy we have, and thirdly, the benefits system is the source of a huge number of peoples' incomes from the civil servants who staff it, to he companies which provide the computers, stationery, furnishings, coffee machines, security guards etc etc etc. Also picking on the few people who cheat the benefit system , whilst far easier than picking on the real cheats in our society is total their cheating amounts to a few million which, to a country like the UK is real cheats, such as the big companies and the royal parasites on the other hand cheat the country of billions and billions of pounds.

So i take it your x was wasted at the last election as not enough agreed with your views
And am i to take it you think the last government did a spiffing job loon

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
How do you know that foreign nationals are attracted to the UK by the lure of benefits? Are you privy to the statistics?

The entire post you quoted from myself was nothing but opinion, with no facts, figures or knowledge to speak of.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79

I agree, most people don't know anything about the political and economic philosophies of the parties for whom they vote and that is one of the reasons political parties don't tell the whole truth when they canvass for votes. Let me give you an example. Whilst the political philosophers on whom Left parties base their views believe that the lower classes (I,m sorry, but I won't use that ridiculous, hypocritical British euphemism 'working classes-we all work for a living) are lower class because of their NURTURE, ie the economic and social conditions into which they were born, the political philosophers on whom Right parties base their views believe that the lower classes are lower class because of NATURE ie that they are unintelligent and so incapable of rising.
In the past, Right parties did not need to keep their views on this quiet because the lower classes were not allowed to vote. But as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage, the lower classes can vote now, and as they form the biggest section of society, any political party wishing to take power needs to get the support of a substantial section of this class. But they are unlikely to get it if they proclaim that these people are lower class because they are naturally unintelligent and incapable of rising. Some lower class people with a propensity for doffing their caps and tugging their forelocks might accept this, but most would probably feel insulted.
I agree that education is the key and Left parties believe very much in education and were responsible for the introduction of free education for all in every society where it exists. Right parties on the other hand do not attach so much importance to education except for the higher classes. They would rather the lower classes didn't learn too much-particularly about subjects such as political philosophy and history. That way, they won't get any ideas into their heads........
With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits. Secondly, as any economist knows, the 'black economy' in the UK is an integral part of the Friedmanite economy we have, and thirdly, the benefits system is the source of a huge number of peoples' incomes from the civil servants who staff it, to he companies which provide the computers, stationery, furnishings, coffee machines, security guards etc etc etc. Also picking on the few people who cheat the benefit system , whilst far easier than picking on the real cheats in our society is total their cheating amounts to a few million which, to a country like the UK is real cheats, such as the big companies and the royal parasites on the other hand cheat the country of billions and billions of pounds.

So i take it your x was wasted at the last election as not enough agreed with your views
And am i to take it you think the last government did a spiffing job loon

No government under the sun is going to agree with all my views. Personally, I have common ground with every party in the UK from the BNP through the three main parties to the Socialist Alliance, but the common ground varies in extent.I have the least with the BNP and the Conservatives and the most with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Personally, I'd like to see a proper democratic government representing everyones's I had my way, the three biggest parties in government would be the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens in that order. But I'd like to see a few MPs from the smaller parties in government BNP because I think to an extent they do have a point viz immigration, the Socialist Alliance to chivvy for a fairer distribution of wealth, and even a good smattering of Tories to make sure we keep some, though not all of our traditions alive (but not fox hunting, sorry Bluefish lol

)
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

The cost of the Royal "parasites" in 2009/10 was £38million, benefit fraud and overpayment was some £3.3 billion. Your version of these statistics is as biased as everything else in your post.

Is that so? From where do you derive your figures? The Sun? The Daily Mail? The Daily Express? Do you really think that the media tells the truth about anything when every single newspaper and every single television station has a political agenda?
Personally I'd be happier to know that my taxes go towards public services-including 'benefits' and grants for young people to better themselves rather than on paying for the a bunch of inbred parasites who should have been sent to the guillotine along with all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys long ago. But I resent paying my taxes so that the NHS can treat people who are obese because they eat too much and don't do enough exercise, people who have heart diseases for the same reason and because they become stressed as a result of spending too much time making money for themselves and because they drink too much. I also resent paying taxes so that the BBC can pay vacuous non entities vast sums of money for hosting television programmes which should be banned on the grounds that they turn millions of people into mindless vegetables, and finally I resent paying taxes so that the government can send some of these mindless vegetables off to intervene in countries where yet again one tribe or faction is killing and butchering another tribe or faction.
I am always surprised that some people on housing benefits are treated with so much more respect than others....I mean 38 million to just a handful of already ultra-rich dole scroungers ...it's nothing is it...only 38 million
how many hospital beds is that ??
Hold on is the young royal not marrying into a coal mining family ??? (redistribution if wealth and all that )
Tuts!!!geeezzz you just can`t please some rolleyes

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
Usual stuff....
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

and that is why it won't be delivered by AV
Your two favoured democracies are a testament to that...

19 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits.

is that an excuse then for peeple to steel money?
sorry never heard so much the parasite comment well how horrid
"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument. And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument.

well is there a better word than rubbish? is crap a beter argument?

Quote by sexyslut79
And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

i get out a lot thankyou very much.
if you are so anti royal family and it seems anti government, then a sugestion may be for you to move to a country that better suits your needs perhaps?
your last comment is so anti royalist and i take it you will not be watching the royal wedding on the telly? lucky you can say those coments now as years ago it would have been you orft to the gulotine to have your head off.:notes:

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument. And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

Ah, Robespierre. A favoured study if there ever was one.
But hang on a minute... wasn't he the main man concerning the reign of terror in the FRENCH revolution and his downfall was executing people for seemingly meaningless reason. Truly a terrorist in everyone's book and your suggested appreciation of his treatment of Louis XVI and how it might now concern the British Royal Family is not surprising, given your leftist tendencies.
Having argued "Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie" he was himself executed by the guillotine (face up I recall just to make it more exciting for him) and justice was truly seen to be done by the people, for the people
Strains of Irish Republicanism dogma there too.. justification for blowing up innocent people like Airey Neave, Lord Louis Mountbatten and those poor unfortunate people in Omagh.
Vive la Revolution! :thumbup:
That is what you are saying, right?

19 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument.

well is there a better word than rubbish? is crap a beter argument?

Quote by sexyslut79
And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

i get out a lot thankyou very much.
if you are so anti royal family and it seems anti government, then a sugestion may be for you to move to a country that better suits your needs perhaps?
your last comment is so anti royalist and i take it you will not be watching the royal wedding on the telly? lucky you can say those coments now as years ago it would have been you orft to the gulotine to have your head off.:notes:
I infer from your numerous spelling mistakes that English is not your first language , so I will try to speak as simply as I can. First, I would point out that whatever the situation in your country , in Britain we believe in freedom of speech, and consequently people are not killed, tortured or driven out because they don't support the current government .Second, a great many people in Britain are republicans, including Roy Hattersley, Ken Livingstone and the odious Rupert Murdoch, (who is incidentally a foreigner but allowed to speak his mind nonetheless). Third, I would certainly not have been beheaded for being a republican in the seventeenth century at least; in fact I would have been beheaded for being a royalist as King Charles 1 discovered. Fourth,having travelled extensively and being as a result in a good position to judge, Britain, suits my needs, as you put it, better than any other country in the world.
With regard to watching the royal wedding on the television, if I was given the choice of either doing that or being tied to a chair and subjected to an endless talk by David Beckham on the joys of kicking a bag of wind around a patch of grass with several hundred voices shouting 'goal' in the background, I'd choose the as, fortunately, no-one will put me in that unenviable position, I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

19 Apr 2011

girls, girls

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
With regard to watching the royal wedding on the television, if I was given the choice of either doing that or being tied to a chair and subjected to an endless talk by David Beckham on the joys of kicking a bag of wind around a patch of grass with several hundred voices shouting 'goal' in the background, I'd choose the as, fortunately, no-one will put me in that unenviable position, I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

Nah, were taking the opportunity to dis-appear that Friday into the more remoter parts of the UK, well away from the television, for 48hrs lol

Mind you, seems the papers will be full of 'the wedding' though there is precise little interest or street parties (sic) planned around here anyway. Fine by us :lol:
As for AV, seems a similar lack of interest locally, as it's also local government elections just expecting the traditional low turn out for both Council and AV Referendum.
So guessing the local preference is to keep things as they are.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777

The cost of the Royal "parasites" in 2009/10 was £38million, benefit fraud and overpayment was some £3.3 billion. Your version of these statistics is as biased as everything else in your post.

I am always surprised that some people on housing benefits are treated with so much more respect than others....I mean 38 million to just a handful of already ultra-rich dole scroungers ...it's nothing is it...only 38 million
how many hospital beds is that ??
No doubt the history lecturer can supply a history lesson on the civil list and how the Crown Estates generates a sizeable surplus for the treasury.
No doubt a history lecturer could....I shall just ask how the crown estates etc. became the proerty of the crown ??

19 Apr 2011

Quote by HnS

With regard to watching the royal wedding on the television, if I was given the choice of either doing that or being tied to a chair and subjected to an endless talk by David Beckham on the joys of kicking a bag of wind around a patch of grass with several hundred voices shouting 'goal' in the background, I'd choose the as, fortunately, no-one will put me in that unenviable position, I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

Nah, were taking the opportunity to dis-appear that Friday into the more remoter parts of the UK, well away from the television, for 48hrs lol

Mind you, seems the papers will be full of 'the wedding' though there is precise little interest or street parties (sic) planned around here anyway. Fine by us :lol:
As for AV, seems a similar lack of interest locally, as it's also local government elections just expecting the traditional low turn out for both Council and AV Referendum.
So guessing the local preference is to keep things as they are.
As far as I can see the difference between the royal wedding and a royal funeral is that even though the T.V. goes to shit at least with a funeral there's a consolation prize.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
Hold on is the young royal not marrying into a coal mining family ??? (redistribution if wealth and all that )
Tuts!!!geeezzz you just can`t please some

I neither know nor care of the putative saints ancestry

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

The cost of the Royal "parasites" in 2009/10 was £38million, benefit fraud and overpayment was some £3.3 billion. Your version of these statistics is as biased as everything else in your post.

I am always surprised that some people on housing benefits are treated with so much more respect than others....I mean 38 million to just a handful of already ultra-rich dole scroungers ...it's nothing is it...only 38 million
how many hospital beds is that ??
No doubt the history lecturer can supply a history lesson on the civil list and how the Crown Estates generates a sizeable surplus for the treasury.
No doubt a history lecturer could....I shall just ask how the crown estates etc. became the proerty of the crown ??
No the History lecturer can't supply a lesson on the civil list, because he doesn't know anything about it, and he is not interested in whether or not the Crown estates generates a sizable surplus for the treasury. I've made my views on the Royal family clear. As soon as that bunch of inbred parasites and all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys are sent to the guillotine the better.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
snip...
I've made my views on the Royal family clear. As soon as that bunch of inbred parasites and all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys are sent to the guillotine the better.

You'll be treating the day as a normal working day then - or donating your extra day's holiday entirely to helping the poor and needy...
Ah no, of course not...

Quote by sexyslut79
I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
snip...
I've made my views on the Royal family clear. As soon as that bunch of inbred parasites and all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys are sent to the guillotine the better.

You'll be treating the day as a normal working day then - or donating your extra day's holiday entirely to helping the poor and needy...
Ah no, of course not...

Quote by sexyslut79
I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

and to think that some poor bastards will be charged £9K a year to have to listen to that sort of biased crap! dunno

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

The cost of the Royal "parasites" in 2009/10 was £38million, benefit fraud and overpayment was some £3.3 billion. Your version of these statistics is as biased as everything else in your post.

I am always surprised that some people on housing benefits are treated with so much more respect than others....I mean 38 million to just a handful of already ultra-rich dole scroungers ...it's nothing is it...only 38 million
how many hospital beds is that ??
No doubt the history lecturer can supply a history lesson on the civil list and how the Crown Estates generates a sizeable surplus for the treasury.
No doubt a history lecturer could....I shall just ask how the crown estates etc. became the proerty of the crown ??
There's no point asking......he doesn't know apparently wink

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777
snip...
I've made my views on the Royal family clear. As soon as that bunch of inbred parasites and all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys are sent to the guillotine the better.

You'll be treating the day as a normal working day then - or donating your extra day's holiday entirely to helping the poor and needy...
Ah no, of course not...

Quote by sexyslut79
I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

and to think that some poor bastards will be charged £9K a year to have to listen to that sort of biased crap! dunno

But at least, unlike under Labour, they won't have to stomp up the cash first...

19 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
snip...
I've made my views on the Royal family clear. As soon as that bunch of inbred parasites and all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys are sent to the guillotine the better.

You'll be treating the day as a normal working day then - or donating your extra day's holiday entirely to helping the poor and needy...
Ah no, of course not...

Quote by sexyslut79
I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

of course they will not. they like the benefits of a nice days holiday but care not where it comes from..how hypocritical some peeple are.
mind you though, be careful about sitting under a tree smoking your joint as squirrels have a funny way of dropping there nuts onto peeples heads below. lol

Quote by max
and to think that some poor bastards will be charged £9K a year to have to listen to that sort of biased crap!

most of the time max it is the peeple from univercity backgrounds that end up thinking this way that is what our taxes end up going on! :twisted:

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
No government under the sun is going to agree with all my views. Personally, I have common ground with every party in the UK from the BNP through the three main parties to the Socialist Alliance, but the common ground varies in extent.I have the least with the BNP and the Conservatives and the most with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Personally, I'd like to see a proper democratic government representing everyones's I had my way, the three biggest parties in government would be the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens in that order. But I'd like to see a few MPs from the smaller parties in government BNP because I think to an extent they do have a point viz immigration, the Socialist Alliance to chivvy for a fairer distribution of wealth, and even a good smattering of Tories to make sure we keep some, though not all of our traditions alive (but not fox hunting, sorry Bluefish )
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

so why just make a point of of how crap the Tories did ....fucking hell where you been for the last decade under Labour. TB (turd boy) and and the idiot they call brown could not have fucked up the UK economy any worse if they`d been trying .
at least try to add a little balance to your post`s that`s if you honestly believe what you write above
and to clarify my own position i favour none of the party`s but always use my local mp to my full advantage wink

19 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV

"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument. And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

Ah, Robespierre. A favoured study if there ever was one.
But hang on a minute... wasn't he the main man concerning the reign of terror in the FRENCH revolution and his downfall was executing people for seemingly meaningless reason. Truly a terrorist in everyone's book and your suggested appreciation of his treatment of Louis XVI and how it might now concern the British Royal Family is not surprising, given your leftist tendencies.
Having argued "Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie" he was himself executed by the guillotine (face up I recall just to make it more exciting for him) and justice was truly seen to be done by the people, for the people
Strains of Irish Republicanism dogma there too.. justification for blowing up innocent people like Airey Neave, Lord Louis Mountbatten and those poor unfortunate people in Omagh.
Vive la Revolution! :thumbup:
That is what you are saying, right?
I only said Robespierre had the right idea with regard to the royalty.I would also say Oliver Cromwell did too, but this does not mean I approve of everything Cromwell did-particularly in regard to the Levellers and the Diggers. Also, one does not have to be a 'leftist' to be anti-monarchy as most of the inhabitants of the United States of America , France, Italy, , Adolf Hitler, Oliver Cromwell and indeed Robespierre himself would confirm.
I am not quite sure why you raised the matter of the IRA in a discussion concerning the British royal family-the IRA seem as irrelevant to me in this context as Jason and the Argonauts. Perhaps you could clarify things for me.
I am intrigued by your supposition that I have 'leftist tendencies'.As I neither believe that people are the way they are because of nurture or nature, but both , and I neither believe in complete state ownership of property nor complete individual ownership of property then I cannot be deemed as having either 'leftist' or 'rightist' tendencies. Perhaps I could be deemed as having 'centrist' the other hand it could just be that like most people I can find some common ground, to varying degrees, with every political party that there is from the BNP through the major three parties to the Socialist Alliance.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
As far as I can see the difference between the royal wedding and a royal funeral is that even though the T.V. goes to shit at least with a funeral there's a consolation prize.

Staggers,
It used to be that the only difference was in the number of flowers, now post Diana, you can't really tell nowadays. dunno

Luckily we have permanent postal votes, and as the envelopes arrived this afternoon they'll be completed later tonight, popped in the post tomorrow so the idea of dis-appearing/avoiding 'car crash' TV proporting to be new stories relating to the 'Royals', elections, and AV comes ever closer to fruition.
:cheers:

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

No government under the sun is going to agree with all my views. Personally, I have common ground with every party in the UK from the BNP through the three main parties to the Socialist Alliance, but the common ground varies in extent.I have the least with the BNP and the Conservatives and the most with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Personally, I'd like to see a proper democratic government representing everyones's I had my way, the three biggest parties in government would be the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens in that order. But I'd like to see a few MPs from the smaller parties in government BNP because I think to an extent they do have a point viz immigration, the Socialist Alliance to chivvy for a fairer distribution of wealth, and even a good smattering of Tories to make sure we keep some, though not all of our traditions alive (but not fox hunting, sorry Bluefish )
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

so why just make a point of of how crap the Tories did ....fucking hell where you been for the last decade under Labour. TB (turd boy) and and the idiot they call brown could not have fucked up the UK economy any worse if they`d been trying .
at least try to add a little balance to your post`s that`s if you honestly believe what you write above
and to clarify my own position i favour none of the party`s but always use my local mp to my advantage wink

I am not aware that I did. I don't know whether or not Labour were good for the economy-I am an Historian not an Economist and I am not prepared to comment on something I know little or nothing about. But I felt and feel that Labour is better for society than the Tories who seem bent on taking from the poor to give to the rich as usual. Having said this,I can think of numerous reasons why I would not place Tony Blair's government on my list of favourite governments, not the least of which is that I feel that he humiliated Britain by following America in everything like a slavering dog.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by essex34m

How do you know that foreign nationals are attracted to the UK by the lure of benefits? Are you privy to the statistics?

The entire post you quoted from myself was nothing but opinion, with no facts, figures or knowledge to speak of.
Really? Well if you need some facts, figures and knowledge to back up your opinion I'm sure you can find them in such erudite publications as The Sun (which is owned by a foreign national) and The Daily Mail.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by essex34m
And if we punished those that stole from the system that was set up to help them, if we stopped giving benefits to people who can actually go to work, but choose to completely manipulate and abuse the system (as opposed to those who genuinely can't afford to work), if we reduce the mindset that falling pregnant is a career move, having children knowing the state will pay rather than accepting the responsibilities of having children, if we reduce the lure of the benefit system to foreign nationals that want to milk this soft touch state, if the decision makers actually looked at and improved the bloated system we have, then we would have many more of these millions of peanuts you speak of.

strange how the truth can be so offensive to some essex wink

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
I only said Robespierre had the right idea with regard to the royalty.

To which you alluded disposing of them by guillotine as under Robespierre's terrorist regime.

Quote by sexyslut79
...one does not have to be a 'leftist' to be anti-monarchy as most of the inhabitants of the United States of America , France, Italy, , Adolf Hitler, Oliver Cromwell and indeed Robespierre himself would confirm.

At odds with your comment is the fact that the peoples of these Countries will be flocking in their thousands to see the event first hand; good news for the British economy! Those who cannot will be glued to their TV sets to wish the happy couple every success in their new life together. Sadly, Herr Hitler and Robespierre will be prevented from enjoying the event.

Quote by sexyslut79
I am not quite sure why you raised the matter of the IRA in a discussion concerning the British royal family-the IRA seem as irrelevant to me in this context as Jason and the Argonauts. Perhaps you could clarify things for me.

Of course. You alluded to disposing of the Royal family in an act of terrorism as would be the preferred method of your chosen champion, Robespierre (see above). I helpfully provided a quote by Robespierre as follows...

Quote by Robespierre
"Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie"

to which I linked the untimely deaths - at the hands of Irish Republican fundamentalists for whom Robespierre's words must surely be a clarion call - of a member of the institution of lawful Governance, a very well respected member of the Royal family (Lord Mountbatten of Burma) and ordinary members of the public. I trust you can now see relevance.

Quote by sexyslut79
I am intrigued by your supposition that I have 'leftist tendencies'.As I neither believe that people are the way they are because of nurture or nature, but both , and I neither believe in complete state ownership of property nor complete individual ownership of property then I cannot be deemed as having either 'leftist' or 'rightist' tendencies. Perhaps I could be deemed as having 'centrist' the other hand it could just be that like most people I can find some common ground, to varying degrees, with every political party that there is from the BNP through the major three parties to the Socialist Alliance.

Perhaps you are right.
But why be so disparaging about another member who may not be as educated as you are or not able to articulate things in the way you might be capable of? That smacks of elitism and your references to Herr Hitler and Robespierre might suggest that 'centrist' is way short of the mark.
Suggesting that we should chop the heads off members of the Royal family suggests a level of extremism I'd rather not visit.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79

No government under the sun is going to agree with all my views. Personally, I have common ground with every party in the UK from the BNP through the three main parties to the Socialist Alliance, but the common ground varies in extent.I have the least with the BNP and the Conservatives and the most with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Personally, I'd like to see a proper democratic government representing everyones's I had my way, the three biggest parties in government would be the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens in that order. But I'd like to see a few MPs from the smaller parties in government BNP because I think to an extent they do have a point viz immigration, the Socialist Alliance to chivvy for a fairer distribution of wealth, and even a good smattering of Tories to make sure we keep some, though not all of our traditions alive (but not fox hunting, sorry Bluefish )
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

so why just make a point of of how crap the Tories did ....fucking hell where you been for the last decade under Labour. TB (turd boy) and and the idiot they call brown could not have fucked up the UK economy any worse if they`d been trying .
at least try to add a little balance to your post`s that`s if you honestly believe what you write above
and to clarify my own position i favour none of the party`s but always use my local mp to my advantage wink

I am not aware that I did. I don't know whether or not Labour were good for the economy-I am an Historian not an Economist and I am not prepared to comment on something I know little or nothing about. But I felt and feel that Labour is better for society than the Tories who seem bent on taking from the poor to give to the rich as usual. Having said this,I can think of numerous reasons why I would not place Tony Blair's government on my list of favourite governments, not the least of which is that I feel that he humiliated Britain by following America in everything like a slavering dog.
i gather you missed the part where brown gave the banks a few bob of the tax payers coppers
or aware of the cuts because of such actions are crippling many working families
that brown refused to stand up to banks regarding paying bonus from the very funds he paid to the banks to save their very rich arses
then we have the lib dems that have held the biggest ever manifesto garage sale to play spot the faithful Tory dog
you may wish to hold off voting again till you know what your vote means as you stated in your reply to fem innocent

19 Apr 2011

Anyway, back on topic.
NO to AV :thumbup:
bolt

19 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
Anyway, back on topic.
NO to AV :thumbup:

No from me too :thumbup:

Yes or no to the alternative vote?